Seismic Performance Upgrading of Existing Bridge Structures

G. Furlanetto
Chief Engineer, Bridge Design Department, SPEA Ingegneria Europea, Milan, Italy
L. Ferretti Torricelli
Senior Engineer, Bridge Design Department, SPEA Ingegneria Europea, Milan, Italy
A. Marchiondelli
Structural Engineer, Bridge Design Department, SPEA Ingegneria Europea, Milan, Italy

ABSTRACT: In Italy the most part of the national infrastructures was realized since the1960s
and nowadays many bridge structures are no longer able to sustain the continuously increasing
functional demands, and to comply with the safety levels required by the new codes. Autostrade
per l’Italia, the main Italian transportation agency, and SPEA Ingegneria Europea, its design
company, developed guidelines for the upgrading of existing bridges, aimed to support all the de-
signers involved in the design activity of SPEA society. This paper is aimed to describe the main
aspects of this document. The design of widening and retrofitting of an existing bridge is finally
presented as case study.

1 INTRODUCTION

In Italy the most part of the national highway system is committed to Autostrade company, which
has to manage about 5500 km of highways, comprising a total of about 3000 bridges.
Since the first highways were built in the 60’s, many of them are nowadays inadequate to meet
the actual functional and safety standards anymore. In order to answer to the continuously in-
creasing demands due to the high volume of traffic flow, and to comply with the recently issued
new seismic regulations, Autostrade and SPEA Ingegneria Europea, its design company, are
widely involved in planning the widening and retrofitting of the most part of the highway network.
The new Italian seismic code (OPCM 3274/2003) introduced innovative design criteria based
on the performance of the structures which deeply differ from the old prescriptive ones. Moreo-
ver, the new seismic hazard maps revealed that many regions, that in the past were not classified,
are to be considered seismic.
In this complex context, the need of developing new and more comprehensive procedures for
evaluating the seismic performance of existing infrastructures according to new codes and for de-
signing safer and easy-to-implement strengthening interventions emerged.
Due to the specifity of the problems and to the unusually large amount of structures of similar
typology to be investigated, Autostrade per l'Italia, in occasion of the widening of the A14 "Adri-
atica" motorway, chose to develop some preliminary studies, called "Monographies", having mul-
tidisciplinary character. In particular, a specific study is dedicated to examine the main critical
aspects related to the existing bridge structures in order to chose the most adequate widening ty-
pology as well as to evaluate the safety level under service and seismic conditions before and af-
ter widening intervention. The problems related to the assessment analysis and the retrofitting
strategies to be adopted according to the new seismic design criteria, are studied in cooperation
with some expert consultants (Pinto, 2005), also involved in the code redaction. As result, an ac-
curate document, called “Guidelines for the evaluation of safety of existing bridges before and af-
ter widening interventions”, is set up with the aim to represent an important reference for all the
designers involved in the design activity of SPEA society.
 In this paper, a description of the design criteria provided by the SPEA guidelines is presented.
In particular, the criteria adopted for widening, assessing and retrofitting existing bridges are de-
scribed, and a representative case study is finally reported.

2 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR WIDENING AND SEISMIC UPGRADING INTERVENTIONS

The former bridge structures belonging to the national highway system were built in the 60’s, and
nowadays many of them result inadequate to comply with the actual functional and safety stand-
ards anymore. In order to manage a so wide number of different constructions and to handle pe-
culiar problems and critical situations, a unitary approach is needed.
To this aim, the official document called “Guidelines for the evaluation of safety of existing
bridges before and after widening interventions" is issued for helping all the designers in charged
by SPEA and Autostrade companies in the widening activities of existing bridges as well as in the
assessment and retrofitting ones. The main objective of this document is the setting up of a tailor-
made assessment procedure which has to satisfy easiness, quickness of use and results accuracy.
In particular, on the basis of the criteria exposed in the Guidelines, here briefly recalled, the de-
signer is able to make a suitable and affordable decision about the widening solution to be adopt-
ed, as well as the opportunity of designing retrofitting interventions or providing the demolition of
the structure, when the cost/benefit comparison is unfavorable.

2.1 The main features of existing highway bridges

Since, fortunately, the structural types adopted for highway bridges are mostly similar, a classifi-
cation of the whole bridge network is made and some typological classes are individuated. In par-
ticular, the main features of the most common existing bridges are recalled in the following.
The structural scheme typically consists of a simply supported span up to about 33 m long.
The deck is usually formed by a grillage of r.c. or p.c. beams linked by some transverse beams.
The deck slab is often very thin, having thickness of about 0.16-0.20 m, and usually has a width
of about 10 m in order to accommodate two traffic lanes. The most common types of bents are
single stocky elevation piers, or framed structures consisting in different slender columns jointed
at the top by means of a beam cap and at the bottom by means of a footing. The abutments gen-
erally consist of a concrete wall lacking in steel reinforcements. The foundation type depends on
soil characteristics, consisting of direct foundation or deep foundation with large diameter piles. The
bearing system usually consists of rocker and roller bearings or simple elastomeric pads. In any case,
restrainers aimed to avoid deck unseating are used. Expansion joints are provided at each bent.
On the basis of these common characteristics, the whole bridge stock is subdivided into five classes
and an appropriate procedure is adopted to chose the best widening solution, to investigate the structur-
al performance in the widened configuration, and finally to design proper interventions aimed to solve
peculiar deficiencies of each type of bridge structure.

2.2 Widening design philosophy

In the design philosophy shared by Autostrade and SPEA companies, the design of the widening
portion is addressed by the concept that this kind of intervention is a part of the strengthening
strategy. In fact, by accurately designing the structural members of the widening portion so to
lead to uniform distribution of seismic forces, the overall performance of the construction can be
improved. To this aim, proper design criteria are defined.
Basically, the widening intervention consists of an enlargement of both superstructure and
supports in continuity with the existing parts. The widening portion is rigidly connected to the ex-
isting one in order to assure a strong cooperation in resisting external forces.
For the widening portion of the superstructure, the chosen solution consisted of a composite
steel-concrete grillage, composed by longitudinal and transversal steel beams, and by a thin rein-
forced concrete slab. The link between the new and old portions of the deck is realized at the slab
level only, by partially demolishing the existing cantilever slab and by using the existing rein-
forcement as well as an accurate system of doweled bars to include in casting the linking zone.
The main design criteria adopted for designing the widening intervention consist of minimizing
the increase of weight of the whole deck, and maintaining the flexibility of the old part.
 With regard to the supports, the basic criteria used for designing the widening portion are
aimed to both technical and aesthetic requirements, by assuring substantially the same character-
istics of the existing part. When the as-built bridge is characterized by single massive piers, the
widening intervention is made by an enlargement of both elevation and foundation in continuity of
the old parts. Whether the piers are instead formed by a framed structure, one or two columns,
depending on the width of the new part, are added by realizing the connection with the old part at
the cap beam level as well as at the footing level. In particular, beside to comply with the geomet-
ric characteristics of the existing part, the proportion of the new structural elements is also made
according to the material characteristics of the old structure.
Finally, with regard to the abutments, the widening portion has also to be designed to supply to
the structural inadequacies of the old structure. To this aim, the new part, monolithically connect-
ed to the old one by means of a system of dowels, is usually designed for a greater stiffness so to
absorb the major effect of the horizontal external forces by unloading the existing portion.

2.3 Seismic design philosophy

The former Italian seismic code imposed prescriptive requirements based on a conventional de-
sign approach. The new one introduced concepts proper of the capacity design, based on the ac-
tual structural performance under seismic events, in accordance with the Eurocode 8. In addition,
official national seismic hazard maps, based on the most recent studies, are issued by dividing the
whole national territory into seismic zones and by avoiding the previous “zero hazard regions”.
The main feature of the above mentioned new seismic design philosophy consists of ensuring
the stability of the structural response in the post-elastic range. To this aim, great attention is
spent on the concept of ductility by providing specific construction details such as efficient an-
chorages for both longitudinal and transversal reinforcements, adequate amount of stirrups in or-
der to improve the confinement of the structural members in correspondence of critical nodes,
proper staggered position of longitudinal reinforcement in order to avoid weak sections, control of
displacements compatibility between adjacent decks, and so on.
The new code also stated as mandatory the check of the seismic performance of all the existing
structures to be considered strategic. Due to the more stringent safety requirements and the in-
creased seismic forces to be accounted for, many existing structures usually reveal deficiencies
related to inadequate ductility due to the poor attention dedicated to the above mentioned con-
struction details. In order to adequate the structural response to the new required safety level,
proper strengthening interventions are often requested.
In the following, the activities associated with the assessment of the seismic performance of ex-
isting bridge structures and with the design of adequate retrofitting interventions, are described.
For these activities, a unitary approach able to standardize as much as possible both the analysis
and rehabilitation methodologies, as well as to catch the peculiarities of critical situations which
call for tailor-made solutions, is needed.

3 ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATING SEISMIC PERFORMANCE

The most important part of the “Guidelines for the evaluation of safety of existing bridges before
and after widening interventions” consists of the setting up of proper methodologies of analysis to
evaluate the seismic performance of existing bridges taking into account also the resisting contri-
bution offered by the widening portion of structure.
The main objectives are to determine the conventional capacity in resisting seismic actions, to
identify the most vulnerable elements or areas, to check the compliance with ductility criteria by
avoiding any brittle failure mechanism, and finally to determine the stiffness of the structure re-
lated to lateral displacements. To reach these goals, a deep knowledge about the state-of-art of the
bridge is needed. To this aim it is essential to examine existing graphic and computing docu-
ments, to verify the design criteria and codes related to the design period of the structure, to check
the mechanical characteristics of the materials, and finally to investigate the amount of eventual
damages. In fact, the level of knowledge influences the choice of the proper method of analysis and de-
termines the values of the partial safety factors to be used in the verification phase.
With these premises, a model able to comply with the structural complexity has to be developed. In
particular, in order to take into account the global behaviour of the whole structure formed by both old
and widening parts, the bridge is studied directly in the widened configuration. It is worth noting that
the mean values of mechanical properties are taken into account with regard to materials, and reduc-
tions of the resistant cross-section and/or of the reinforcement amount are computed when notably ef-
fects of deterioration occurred in the existing members.
According with the Guidelines, seismic analysis can be developed by using a linear static anal-
ysis, applicable only for structures which satisfy proper regularity criteria, or a non linear static
analysis, called pushover analysis, able to take into account the post-elastic behaviour.

3.1 Linear static analysis

The linear static analysis is a simplified method in which a set of equivalent seismic forces can be
derived from a modal superposition, eventually taking the cracking effects into account.
The field of application of this method is limited on the respect of regularity criterion based on
the uniformity of inelastic demand of all the primary resisting structural elements. In particular,
the parameter which governs this aspect for a section "i" is ri=Di/Ci , where Di represents the
bending moment demand, and Ci represents the corresponding capacity. A bridge can be consid-
ered as regular structure if the ratio between the maximum and minimum values of r evaluated in
all the sections of primary resisting members results to be minor than 2.5.
The main steps of this analysis method are summarized in the following:
1) evaluation of seismic internal actions;
2) evaluation of r = M/Mr for all the critical sections;
3) evaluation of the parameter R = rmax/rmin and checking of regularity criterion of the whole structure;
4) verification of elements characterized by "ductile" behaviour;
5) verification of elements characterized by "non ductile" behaviour.
More in detail, for ductile mechanisms, the verification is made on the basis of a comparison
between the capacity in terms of curvature mC of the section characterized by r > 1 and the de-
mand mD which is calculated with the following formulas:
mD = 1+2(r-1)Tc/T for T < Tc
mD = 2r-1 for T ≥ Tc
where T is the period of the structure and Tc is a parameter fixed by the code according to the re-
sponse spectrum to be adopted.
On the contrary, for brittle mechanisms, the verification is made by comparing the forces act-
ing in seismic conditions with the strength resistance of the element under examination. In partic-
ular, the evaluation of the forces acting in seismic conditions can be made by using the direct val-
ues deriving from the analysis or by deducing them from equilibrium considerations on the system
in which plastic hinges occurred in all the sections presenting values of r exceeding the unity.
It is worth noting that, due to its local sectional character, the above described methodology is
subject to very restrictive conditions, based on the above described regularity criterion. However,
in this field of applicability, it results to be an useful tool to assess seismic performance of bridg-
es.

3.2 Non-linear static analysis

When the linear methods of analysis are not applicable, a valuable alternative consists of the non-linear
static analysis, called also pushover analysis, which is not subject to applicability conditions.
In the pushover analysis, an equivalent system of lateral forces is applied on the bridge by incremen-
tally increasing its magnitude in accordance with a certain predefined pattern. In this way, by monitor-
ing the structural behaviour during the analysis, weak zones and failure modes of the bridge are found.
The response of a bridge, that is usually a MDOF system, is modelled as an equivalent SDOF
system. For describing the post-elastic capacity of the bridge, the non linear behaviour of the
main structural elements is described by means of bending moment versus curvature diagrams.
The non linear law of the structural response under earthquake conditions may be expressed in
term of resultant applied force versus the displacement evaluated in an opportunely selected con-
trol point, and it is usually called “capacity curve”. In general, any point at the deck level may be
chosen as control point. The target displacement used for the verification phase is set up by
means of the displacement spectra function provided by the code with reference to the vibration
period of the equivalent SDOF system.
In the following, the main steps of the pushover analysis are recalled:
1) evaluation of the capacity curve of the structure and identification of the displacement capacity
at the control point (du);
2) calculation of the displacement demand d* according to the design response spectrum;
3) comparison between du and d*, by controlling in this way the ductile mechanism of failure;
4) verification of non-ductile failure modes, by comparison the acting forces in seismic condition
with the strength resistance of the structural members.
On the basis of the results obtained in the verification phase, the actual response of the struc-
ture under seismic events is found and the weakest structural elements are also found. The next
step consists of designing, if required, the most adequate retrofitting intervention according to the
retrofitting strategies.

4 STRATEGIES FOR RETROFITTING INTERVENTIONS

On the basis of the results of the analysis developed in accordance with the described methodolo-
gies, a reliable judgment about the seismic performance of existing bridges and the need of con-
tingent retrofitting interventions can be expressed. In many cases the existing bridges revealed se-
vere structural deficiencies which caused an inadequate safety level (Furlanetto et al., 2007).

4.1 The most common deficiencies of existing highway bridges

The superstructure does not usually present any criticism since its behavior is quite rigid during
earthquakes. On the contrary, the seismic performance of the whole bridge structure is strongly
influenced by the behavior of bearing system and bents. In particular, the bearing system, able to
accommodate only small displacements and to support moderate horizontal forces, does not usu-
ally ensure the correct load path of forces between deck and piers. As a consequence, the major
risk is about the deck unseating. With regard to the piers, many other severe deficiencies are
found. More in detail, when the pier consists of a single elevation, the most critical zone is at the
base, while when the pier is formed by a framed structure, all the nodal zones may be critical.
Due to the low attention paid to construction details, such as poor confinement of concrete core,
insufficient overlength in longitudinal bars and large stirrups spacing, the piers are subjected to
risk of shear, flexural and lap slice failure modes, and often present also insufficient ductility ca-
pacity in correspondence of the zones in which plastic hinges can occur. Since the overstrength of
the piers is not properly accounted for, the foundations result often under-designed for earthquake
loadings. Finally, the abutments, generally designed only for gravity loads, are not able to coun-
teract the strong soil-pressure developed in seismic conditions. They are usually subjected to risk
of shear as well as slipping and/or overturning failure modes.

4.2 Overview on typical retrofitting interventions

After an accurate analysis of the structural deficiencies, a unitary strategy for choosing the most
adequate retrofitting interventions is developed. In order to improve the seismic performance of
the whole construction, the widening intervention is properly designed so to partially unload the
existing portion. When the old structure did not present any severe deficiency, this intervention
revealed already enough for ensuring the satisfaction of safety requirements in seismic conditions.
More frequently, however, a more stringent upgrading of the structural performance is needed.
With regard to the bearing system, the emerged inadequacy is solved by integrally replacing
old bearings with new ones able to accommodate larger displacements and to support greater hor-
izontal forces, without changing the original bond scheme. Additional restrainers are also provid-
ed so to avoid the deck unseating. They are usually formed by squat r.c. cantilevers rigidly con-
nected to the upper part of both piers and abutments, or alternatively by steel devices anchored
underside the ends of deck girders.
With regard to the piers, in case of insufficient strength resistance of the elevations, a common
rehabilitation strategy provides to cast an external r.c. jacket around the existing pier. The addi-
tional reinforcements is properly designed to supply to the inadequacy of both flexural and shear
strength resistance, while the increasing of the cross-sectional dimensions assures more stiffness,
but also causes a higher weight of the structure. Instead, in case of insufficient ductility capacity
of the potential plastic hinges, one of the most efficient rehabilitation technique involves the use
of advanced materials such as Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP). In particular, the intervention
usually consists of wrapping the critical areas by using FRP so to enhance the confinement effect
of the existing concrete core. The former type of intervention strongly influences the stiffness and
strength characteristics of the structure, by causing sometime additional stresses at the founda-
tional level. The latter type of retrofitting intervention, instead, acts only on the ductility capacity
in terms of cross-sectional curvature.
When the foundations revealed insufficient strength resistance, the typical solution consists of
an enlargement of the foundational structure in continuity of the old part, so to assure almost the
minimum level of capacity requirements.
In the same way, the retrofitting intervention of the inadequate abutments is generally aimed to
partially unload the existing structure by realizing a more stiff and strong widening portion, rigid-
ly connected to the old one, able to assure an adequate safety level. When it is not enough, an ad-
ditional system of passive ties is designed so to adsorb all the horizontal forces developed in
seismic conditions, by delegating the existing structure in resisting to the gravity loads only.

5 CASE STUDY: THE CESANO BRIDGE

5.1 The Cesano bridge before and after the widening intervention
The Cesano bridge, 264.0 m long, develops along a straight profile (Figure 1). The as-built
bridge is formed by eight simply supported deck, each one 33.0 m long and 9.80 m wide, sup-
ported by framed piers. The superstructure is a grillage composed by four p.c. beams linked by
transversal r.c. beams with spacing of 8.0 m. The bearing system consists of a system of elasto-
meric pads, visibly damaged. The bents, having height varying from 5 m to 7 m, consist of
framed structures formed each one by two circular columns linked by a cap beam and a footing
(Figure 2). The foundation is realized by means of piles. Finally, the abutments are composed by
r.c. walls.

Figure 1 Longitudinal profile

Basically, the widening intervention consists of an enlargement of both superstructure and

piers in continuity with the existing parts (Figure 3). In particular, the new portion of the deck
consists of a composite structure formed by three steel longitudinal beams, linked by transversal
beams with spacing of 8.0 m, and by a concrete slab, 0.20 m thin. The proportion of the structur-
al members of the new bents is designed to comply with the geometric characteristics and me-
chanical properties of the old ones. To this aim, two additional circular columns are provided by
ensuring the connection with the old ones by means of the enlargement of both cap beam and
footing. Finally, the bearings system is integrally replaced by new elastomeric pads and a system
of restrainers aimed to avoid the jumping of the deck.
 CESANO
Figure 2 As-built BRIDGE
configuration Figure 3 Widened configuration

5.2 Seismic Performance Analysis

Due to the height variability of the piers, the Cesano bridge cannot be considered as regular struc-
ture. For this reason, a non linear static analysis is adopted. Two independent pushover analysis
are carried out in order to study the seismic response in longitudinal and transversal directions
separately. Due to the limited span of the deck, the vertical direction of the seismic excitation can
be ignored. For the former analysis, a three-dimensional model is adopted by including the whole
bridge; for the latter analysis, instead, two different bi-dimensional models are used in order to
study only the piers characterized by the maximum and the minimum height respectively. In these
latter cases, the deck is modelled by means of a system of lumped masses.
During the analysis phase some basic assumptions are made, and in particular: the superstruc-
ture is considered to be rigid, and an ideal rigid foundation is assumed to be at the base of each
bent. As constitutive models for concrete and reinforcing steel, the uniaxial stress-strain relation-
ships based on the work of Mander et al. (1988) and Menegotto and Pinto (1977), respectively,
are used. The mean values of mechanical properties are assumed, and the piers cracked stiffness
is used. In order to describe the plastic hinge behaviour, bending moment versus curvature dia-
grams are provided for both old and new columns. Additional diagrams are taken into account for
the cap beam behaviour during the analysis in transversal direction.
In longitudinal direction, the whole bridge can be viewed as a set of seven SDOF systems in
series. In fact, the piers behave as cantilevers loaded at the top by the same horizontal force in-
duced by the deck mass. Due to its greater stiffness, the pier with lower height presents the small-
er displacement capacity at the top. For congruence, the top displacements of the other piers are
also limited at the value imposed by the smallest one, not allowing in this way the complete ex-
ploitation of the capacity in terms of curvature of the slender piers.
Figure 4 shows the capacity curve in which the two crucial points related to the displacement
demand and capacity, respectively, are highlighted. As can be noted, the displacement demand
exceeds the correspondent capacity of about the 30%. The collapse is due to the reaching of the
ultimate curvature at the base of the existing columns of the smallest pier. In particular, the veri-
fication consists of checking that the ratio between available and target ductility curvature capaci-
ty of the base cross-section is greater than unity, as described in the following procedure:
Available ductility curvature capacity: mfCava = fu/fy = 2.26e-2/1.57e-3 = 14.41
Target ductility curvature capacity: mfDtar = ftar/fy = 3.46e-2/1.57e-3 = 22.10
Ratio Available/Target capacity: mfCava / mfDtar = 0.63 < 1
Since the ratio Available/Target capacity is less than unity, the potential plastic hinges at the base
of the old columns of the smallest pier need a retrofitting intervention aimed to improve their duc-
tility capacity in terms of curvature.
 12000000.00

10000000.00 d* = 46.17 mm
du = 34.84

8000000.00
F (N)

6000000.00

4000000.00

2000000.00

0.00
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045

Figure 4 Longitudinal Pushover: capacity curve and summary table

In transversal direction, every bent behaves independently each from the others. For this rea-
son, only the tallest and the smallest piers can be studied. Due to the asymmetry of the framed
structure of each bent, also caused by the presence of members having different behaviour in ten-
sion and compression, both positive and negative versus of seismic forces have to be considered.
Figure 5 shows the capacity curves deriving from the analysis, in which the crucial points related
to both displacement demand and capacity are highlighted. As can be noted, the displacement ca-
pacity exceeds the correspondent demand, by ensuring in all cases the verification of ductile
mechanism. The verification of brittle mechanisms, made in term of forces by comparing the
stresses evaluated in correspondence of the target displacement with the strength resistance of the
structural members, is also satisfied.

Figure 5 Transversal Pushover: capacity curve and summary table

5.3 Seismic Design Retrofitting

As result of the assessment procedure, an excessive mobility of the deck, as well as an insuffi-
cient ductility capacity of the potential plastic hinges at the base of the old columns of the small-
est pier emerged. In order to ensure safe transmission of the forces from deck to bents, the bear-
ings system is integrally replaced by new elastomeric pads, and a system of restrainers aimed to
avoid the jumping of the deck is added. In order to enhance the confinement effect of the inade-
quate plastic hinges and, in this way, to improve their ductility capacity, the retrofitting interven-
tion consisted of an external FRP jacket made by unidirectional fiber epoxy-impregnated sheets
wrapped around columns, with the main fibers oriented in the hoop direction (Figure 3).
The effectiveness of this intervention, designed on the basis of the FIB criteria (FIB Bulletin
14, 2001), is expressed by means of a retrofitting index, which relates the available ductility at
the pier base section to the desired level of ductility to attain through FRP jacketing. Since in this
case the retrofitting index is equal to 1.54, the ductility capacity of the potential plastic hinges at
the base of the old columns can be considered improved of about 50%.

6 CONCLUSIONS
In order to sustain the continuously increasing functional demands, and to comply with the safety
levels required by the new codes, Autostrade and SPEA companies developed a document aimed
to support all the designers involved in the upgrading of the existing infrastructure. In this paper,
the main aspects of the “Guidelines for the evaluation of safety of existing bridges before and af-
ter widening interventions” are recalled, by proponing a unitary approach on the most appropriate
analysis and diagnosis methods, and on the most adequate remedial measures to be adopted in or-
der to improve the seismic performance of existing bridges. Finally, a representative case study is
presented by briefly describing the retrofitting interventions aimed to eliminate excessive mobility
of the deck, to ensure safe transmission of the forces through bearings, and finally to improve the
ductility of the potential plastic hinges.

7 REFERENCES

FIB Task Group 9.3, 2001. Externally bonded FRP reinforcement for RC structures. FIB Bulletin 14.
Lausanne: Fèdèration International du Bèton.
Furlanetto, G., Ferretti Torricelli, L. & Marchiondelli, A., Structural Assessment and Rehabilitation of
Concrete Bridges, IABSE Symposium, September 19-21, 2007, Weimar, Germany.
Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N., and Park, R. (1988). “Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for Confined
Concrete.” Journal Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 114(8), 1804-1826.
Menegotto, M. and Pinto, P.E. (1977). “Slender RC Compressed Members in Biaxial Bending.” J.
Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 103(3), 587-605.
OPCM 3274/2003: "General criteria for the seismic classification of Italian territory and technical
specification for structures", and following modifications.
Pinto P.E. (2005), The Eurocode 8-Part 3: The new European code for the seismic assessment of
existing structures. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 5.